(November 28, 2012 at 6:41 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote:

(November 28, 2012 at 6:37 pm)alwayson Wrote: Have you read the first post?

I'm not understanding where you are getting these "two distinct substances" or monism?

I have stated none of these things. Don't impose your fucked up views on me.

ahhh the "fuck you I`m special" statement.

its the "fuck you, don't present your views as mine" statement.

(November 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm)alwayson Wrote: its the fuck you, don't put your views on my lips.

As I see it apophenia was disecting your "views" and categorising them.

Maybe you dont like that. But you better get use to it.

(November 28, 2012 at 6:48 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: As I see it apophenia was disecting your "views" and categoriting them.

Maybe you dont like that. But you better get use to it.

Yeah I posit two distinct substances. The substances are peanut butter and jelly.

(November 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm)alwayson Wrote:

(November 28, 2012 at 6:41 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: ahhh the "fuck you I`m special" statement.

its the "fuck you, don't present your views as mine" statement.

Why get so worked up? You view, her view, that she is presenting her view as your, just illusions, right?

(November 28, 2012 at 5:17 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Have you actually ever read any of Dawkins' books on religion and atheism? He doesn't actually ever attempt to prove god doesn't exist, he simply points out that there's on reason to believe....

Like I said, western atheism is weak.

Madhyamaka has proofs that negate any claim of a Creator.

(November 28, 2012 at 7:40 pm)alwayson Wrote:

(November 28, 2012 at 5:17 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Have you actually ever read any of Dawkins' books on religion and atheism? He doesn't actually ever attempt to prove god doesn't exist, he simply points out that there's on reason to believe....

Like I said, western atheism is weak.

Indeed, nothing is as strong as smug obscurantism.

(November 28, 2012 at 7:45 pm)Chuck Wrote: Indeed, nothing is as strong as smug obscurantism.

Dawkin's smug obscurantism does not seem that strong when he is cornered into explaining the beginning of the universe.

(November 28, 2012 at 7:40 pm)alwayson Wrote:

(November 28, 2012 at 5:17 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Have you actually ever read any of Dawkins' books on religion and atheism? He doesn't actually ever attempt to prove god doesn't exist, he simply points out that there's on reason to believe....

Like I said, western atheism is weak.

Madhyamaka has proofs that negate any claim of a Creator.

And, like you ignored, what is "western atheism"?

I've never heard that term, and I'm an atheist who lives in the west. Is an atheist's lack of belief different if one lives in the UK than if one lives in India, or Ghana, or Argentina?

Curious also that you appear to cherry pick the post instead of confronting the issues raised to you. What was it you said about misrepresenting posts by other people?

ok, let me get this straight.
You are an atheist, so you have no belief in the existence of gods.

Then you say you're not a realist, which, as far as I understood, means you think this physical realm (where most of us think we and the Universe are) is not real. Are you trying to propose a brain the vat theory? or just abstract consciousnesses, somehow interacting with each other under the illusion of this physical realm? or is it something else you can't define?

(November 28, 2012 at 7:52 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: And, like you ignored, what is "western atheism"?

All of atheism outside Madhyamaka

---

(November 28, 2012 at 7:52 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Then you say you're not a realist, which, as far as I understood, means you think this physical realm (where most of us think we and the Universe are) is not real.

We put forth no philosophical position.

As Nāgārjuna says: "If I had a thesis, I would be at fault; as I alone have no thesis, I alone am without fault."